Injuries Sustained by MS Worker in Fight Over Country Music Not Compensable
In a case with a bizarre fact pattern, a Mississippi appellate court affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who sustained injuries in a workplace altercation [Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc., 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 337 (Sept. 27, 2022). Finding that the altercation’s cause had been an argument over music genres—and not the work being performed—the court agreed with the Commission’s determination that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. The court added that the worker’s injuries also resulted from conduct that had been intended to cause injury to himself or another, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7(1)(Rev. 2021).
Background
Hollis was employed by Acoustics Inc. as an acoustical grid installer at a construction site. Other sub-contractors performed other construction work at the project. One such company was Hi-Tek, a sprinkler installation company. Hi-Tek employees Blanks and Self (a Hi-Tek supervisor) were on site that day and had chosen to play Christian rap music on a phone while they worked in a nearby room. Although there was a conflict in the testimony, it appears that Hollis complained to a supervisor about the “loud” music and then took a break. When the supervisor advised Blanks and Self about the complaint, they turned it off.
Hollis testified that after he returned from his break, he discovered that Blanks had begun to work in the same room as Hollis and had moved Hollis’ work materials and tools to the middle of the room in order to continue the sprinkler installation. Hollis stated that Blanks was on top of a ten-foot ladder and called down to Hollis with an apology for moving his tools. Hollis testified that he then told Blanks it was ok that the tools were moved and said he then apologized to Blanks for talking to the supervisor about the music that Blanks and Self had been playing.
Hollis said that Blanks came down the ladder and “got right up in my face,” so Hollis pushed him. He testified that when he pushed Blanks, Blanks had not yet touched him. He stated that Blanks then put him in a chokehold and kicked his knee out from under him, which caused him to fall. Hollis’ right knee hit the floor. Hollis testified that because he felt he was about to pass out from the chokehold, he grabbed a hammer drill on the floor and tried to hit Blanks with it. According to Hollis, the fight ended when Blanks let go of him and left the room.
Blanks’ testimony differed from Hollis’ testimony in many respects. He said that when Hollis returned from his break, he proceeded to use racial slurs, asking why he listened to that “N” word stuff” and not country music. Blanks explained that he did not like country music and made a dig at Hollis about the genre. Blanks testified that Hollis got angry, grabbed the ten-foot ladder Blanks was working on, and said to Blanks, “I bet you won’t come off the ladder and say that ….” Blanks said he descended the ladder and repeated his insult regarding country music. Hollis then shoved him, and the altercation commenced.
Claim for Comp Benefits
Hollis, who ultimately underwent surgery to repair a complete tear of the medial collateral ligament, a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, and a rupture of the medial collateral ligament of his right knee. He sought workers’ compensation benefits. Following a hearing, the administrative judge found the claim was not compensable, since at the time of the injury both Hollis and Blanks had deviated from the employment. The Commission affirmed, with Commissioner Henry dissenting. The Commission found that Hollis had engaged in conducted intended to injure himself or another, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7(1)(Rev. 2021).
Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court acknowledged Hollis’ core argument—that the injuries he sustained resulted from compensable workplace violence since the argument over music and the movement of his tools was intertwined with Hollis’ construction work that day. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the Commission’s decision.
Argument Over Music Genre, Not the Work
Quoting John Hancock Trucking Co. v. Walker, 243 Miss. 487, 495, 138 So. 2d 478, 480 (1962), which in turn quoted Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court agreed that injuries in a workplace fight could be compensable if the subject matter of the quarrel was related to the employment, e.g., performance of the job, the order in which the work was performed, or the possession of certain tools. The court stressed:
In the present case, nothing in the record shows that Hollis’ employment was a contributing cause to his injury. He did not become involved in the quarrel with Blanks because of the performance of his job, the order in which the work was performed, or the possession of certain tools. The altercation was not even over what music would be played while working. Blanks, Self, and Hollis all agreed that the dispute was over musical genre preference (Christian rap versus country music), and all testimony supports that the music had been turned off; no music was playing at the time the altercation ensued. A quarrel regarding musical genre preference is not subject matter that is considered related to work, and thus is not compensable [Opinion pp. 12-13].
Conduct Intended to Injure
The court added that the Commission found that Hollis “willfully engaged in conduct intended to injure himself or another when he abandoned his employment to participate in physical altercation.” This, too, said the court, barred Hollis from recovery under the law.